I'm in the process of learning Objective-c but would like to run code snippets via some sort of emulator on Windows — preferably web based.
I want to understand Objective-C syntax and walk through common code examples, probably via some sort of console. I would probably leave any framework type learning for when I get onto my MacBook, at home.
I have done a quick Google with no success.
It depends what you mean. Objective-C can be compiled by GCC, so you can happily create Objective-C test apps on Windows. If you are talking about the frameworks though, which contain most of the power when developing on OSX then it's a no unfortunately. You can get libraries compatible with SOME parts from gnustep.org (and run them on Linux/BSD), but it's still not the full OSX "stack".
You can get OS X running in VMWare, but it's illegal, so you best bet is to pickup a cheap Mac that can run Tiger/Leopard and use that.
Looked at GNUStep?
Another possibility is to use Cappuccino.
http://cappuccino.org
It is a cocoa-like framework for javascript, and looks very similar to objective-c.
The language is called objective-j.
AFAIK you can use the GNU compiler to compile Objective-C, so that should be usable on Windows too. This should be sufficient to get you started with programming the language.
For Mac OS X however the language is only part of the equation, you will want to program against the libraries of Mac OS X, and for that you will really need a machine running it.
I'm not sure which libraries are present and which are not but you can run OS X Server in a VM (providing you have an OS X Server license of course). This would allow you to have a virtual Mac environment on your Windows system.
As has been mentioned above, there's no way to achieve what you want natively within Windows as the underlying system is obviously different.
Good luck.
There also is The Cocotron.
Related
I have a plan to build a web-site which running CGI made with Cocoa.
My final goal is develop on Mac OS X, and run on FreeBSD.
Is this possible?
As I know, there is a free implementation of some NextStep classes, the GNUStep.
The web-site is almost built with only strings. I read GNUStep documents, classes are enough. DB connection will be made with C interfaces.
Most biggest problem which I'm concerning is linking and binary compatibility. I'm currently configuring FreeBSD on VirtualBox, but I wanna know any possibility informations about this from experts.
This is not a production server. Just a trial. Please feel free to saying anything.
--edit--
I confused Foundation and Cocoa frameworks. What I said was Foundation. Basic classes which just enough to manipulating strings.
It’s entirely possible to cross-develop using Xcode. The Cocotron does this – and provides an implementation of Foundation – but doesn’t currently target FreeBSD. You could probably use it as a template to set up cross-development for BSD targets using GNUstep, but it won’t be easy.
You should be OK with the GNUstep Foundation on FreeBSD 9.0 with Objective-C 2 (clang). See these instructions.
Note: Do not installing under '/' with a FreeBSD default install, because it has little space on the '/' partition. I've used /usr/local/gnustep instead, and made some links as the instructions suggest.
Note II: GNUstep sources from subversion repository didn't compile for me, so I used the latest stable GNUstep sources.
Yes, you can do this, and I am doing it right now successfully using FreeBSD 8.2 and Xcode 4.0, running the Foundation class from The Cocotron. Here is a link: describing exactly what I did to build the cross compiler and set everything up. I also detail in that post, how I attempted to get AppKit (GUI) to work. I failed, it may work in the future, it doesn't fully work yet.
So far it's great. I use a common codebase to write iPhone App (game client) and FreeBSD Game Server; after my server compiles I even have a target rsync the files to my dev box.
One more note, you mention DB, I'm successfully using mysqlclient libraries within my App and my post details how to do that. Since you're building a cross-compiler with The Cocotron you can use any library. Just install the library on FreeBSD first, then create the platform as described.
Sounds like your trying to shoehorn tools onto OS and hardware they were not designed for. There are hacks to get almost anything running on top of anything else but why ask for all the grief?
The entire point of the entire Apple API is that you have integration from hardware to OS to development tools. You supposed to pay more up front in return for greater robustness and lower over all lifecycle cost. (It doesn't always work just like Linux doesn't always save money and Windows doesn't always provide the software choices you need but that is the design goal.) When you break Apple's hardware-OS-Dev trinity you have to start fighting the API and the hardware instead of letting it work for you.
I don't think what you're doing will work and even if it does it will cost a lot of time and in the end time is money. Unless your being forced by external circumstances beyond your control to use this configuration, I would strongly suggest you do whatever it takes to find another way to accomplish what you want.
You won't get binary compatibility. Mac OS X uses the Mach-O object format and FreeBSD uses ELF, like linux. Cocoa won't work on platforms other than Mac OS, but if you stick to POSIX and open-source libraries though, you shouldn't have too much trouble building your CGI (and any dependencies) on your FreeBSD machine.
Also, Cocoa for a website? It's the Mac OS standard library for GUIs, associated datastructures, and various helpers. Apple used to promote something called WebObjects which was similar to Cocoa for the web, but I haven't heard anything about it in ages. I don't think Cocoa will work for a website, unless you just mean write a custom web server that has a graphical front-end in Cocoa.
Why can't Xcode be hacked to be able to run on Windows?
Does Xcode have another programming methods?
Also, I heard that iPhone apps are made with Objective-C, so why is this not available in Windows?
Thanks
Xcode is written in Objective-C and takes advantage of a number of OS X frameworks, so porting it to Windows would require porting all the frameworks on which Xcode relies. Furthermore, Xcode also uses a number of programming tools that would have to be ported to Windows as well (some of them already are, of course).
There are several reasons that Objective-C isn't readily available on Windows:
Most development of Objective-C frameworks takes place on OS X, and a lot of the frameworks aren't open-source and thus can't be ported to Windows (they'd have to be rewritten).
There are some open-source frameworks that could be used on Windows -- for example, OS X's AppKit and Foundation frameworks are (mostly) available as part of the GNUstep project -- but these frameworks aren't widely used or supported on Windows, and sometimes lack capabilities found in their OS X counterparts.
That said, GCC is available on Windows, and since GCC is an Objective-C compiler, you could compile Objective-C code on Windows if you had the right libraries available (or didn't use any third-party libraries). But Objective-C isn't terribly useful without supporting frameworks, and those are rare or nonexistent on Windows.
Same can be said why isn't there Visual Studio 2008 for OSX.
Xcode is a big application written to set of APIs not present on Windows. Porting it would be an enormous job, maintaining it would be a big job, and there are already popular IDEs on the Windows platform.
The same reason you can't install Mac OS X on your PC: Apple chooses to make it available only to people who own their own brand of computers.
I guess that porting XCode would be close to very hard (if not impossible) but even if you were able to have a running XCode version under Windows, I guess that it won’t do what you really want it to do. I assume you want a complete iPhone SDK environment which is reliant on XCode and Interface Builder in a very tight way. That’d require the port of Cocoa Frameworks (among other things) that would be, now for real, impossible to port.
Truth is, as much as you will surely need Windows for Windows Phone development, you need a Macintosh computer for iPhone development.
On the other hand, Xcode as an IDE, is not the best in the world, so even if you managed to get Xcode and make it use, .NET (for example), I’d much rather use visual studio for that.
Actually you can install Mac OS X on any Intel CPU based machine. It is legal as you own the orginal install DVD for the OS X system. After aquiring a copy of Virtualbox or VMWare (either is great, personally I prefer Virtualbox because the display settings are more customizable). Virtualbox allows setup on initial setup while VMWare requires an extra step to ensure compatibility. You can then find the steps online to setup a virtual copy of MacOS X.
After going through the steps to install the OS in the Virtual Machine, you can then go through the process to find XCode in the Apple App Store. From there, have at it. Start programming in XCode and have a good time. Since XCode has its own device emulator you have a built in platform for iOS testing. There may be times where it is a bit buggy but that is to be expected with ANY emulator for ANY system you run.
After you get everything installed and going, sit back and enjoy the programming ride. The only catch is if you want to post anything on the Apple App store and then you will have to deal with getting an Apple Dev License. Objective C can be a bit difficult at times but, at the same time, it can be very satisfying when you solve those programming problems (as with any programming language right ;-) )
Enjoy
PS... this VM install keeps up with all updates from the Apple App Store so keeping the system updated won't be a problem.
PSS... I will not condone anyone for where their source of software is but do keep in mind, setting up a VM with VMWare or Virtualbox and an install DVD is only legal IF you personally OWN the install DVD you created the install image from yourself!
I am currently in a class that is developing applications in Objective-C and Cocoa. I was wondering if there was any way to build and compile Objective-C applications on Windows Vista. During class, we are able to use the Mac machines provided to us, but I was hoping to do some work outside of class, and I only have a Windows Vista machine available to me. I have installed GNUStep. I am looking for a GUI or an IDE that I could use. I have Eclipse, and I tried to install ObjectivEClipse, but that is only for a Mac machine too. Any other suggestions? Thanks.
The compiler is no problem, since gcc includes an Objectve-C frontend. You could simply install Cygwin and use it. the issue is about libraries.
The Cocoa system is very Apple proprietary; but it's a descendant from NeXTStep. For a while (when NeXT was even deeper in debts than Apple) it was named OpenStep, and available as a shell around the NT kernel. Around that time, the GNUStep project was started, and it seems it's still there.
Note, however, that any xxStep libraries gives only a NeXT-like GUI, very different from modern macs. Also, a lot of the newer capabilities are not only new GUI; but new APIs too and these won't be found there.
in short... it's easier to go with a mac.
GNUstep itself offers ProjectCenter, which is a take-off of Project Builder, the NeXTstep IDE that Xcode is derived from. It also maintains the Interface Builder knockoff GORM.
Also, you'll want to bear in mind that GNUstep is a bit limited compared to Cocoa (just because Apple has a whole paid professional development team working on Cocoa full-time and GNUstep does not) and GORM uses a different format from Interface Builder, so if you're taking a class, there may be some Cocoa assignments you won't be able to do with it.
Under the heading of desperation measures:
It's old school but if you have a friend with a mac, you could telnet into the mac and run the dev tools there. You would code in an editor on Vista and then up load to the mac to compile.
That would only let you see the results of command line apps but it would better than nothing.
If the macs in your school lab are accessible you could just screen share from your Vista box. That's another long shot.
Might be easier to beg, borrow or steal a Mac mini.
The Cocoa frameworks are only available on Mac. For anything else, you'll have to use GNUStep.
I'm starting to learn Objective-C and I don't have a Mac (and I don't have plans to get one), but as I see that Cocoa is a very good framework to develop in Objective-C, I want to know: Is it possible to develop using Cocoa in Windows and Linux?
Thanks.
I think that your best bet, if you want to use Cocoa, is to get a Mac. You really won't regret it. GNUstep is a neat solution, but it is impractical to distribute applications built using GNUstep, because (as far as I know), clients must have the runtime installed for it to work.
Cocotron is an amazing project as well, and in the future, it may be useful for you if you want simple apps to run on both Mac OS and Windows. But you would still need a Mac to use it.
If you are interested in using a language like Objective-C with a framework like Cocoa, but don't want to get a Mac, why don't you try web application development with Cappuccino and Objective-J?. Objective-J is an implementation of an Objcective-C-like language in JavaScript, and Cappuccino is a really amazing imitation of the Cocoa framework in Objective-J.
Some examples of what can be created using that framework are 280 Slides and the new, stunningly beautiful EnStore. That's not a perfect solution, and unless you are content to just do web applications, you should buy a Mac.
Take a look at Cocotron
The purpose of the project is to provide an easy to use cross-platform solution for Objective-C development. In particular, source code level compatibility with recent versions of Apple's frameworks (OS X 10.4 and 10.5).
The general goal is to provide complete support on any viable platform, the project is intended to be as portable as possible. However, most of the work at this time is focused on providing support for Microsoft Windows. In particular the NT based versions, 2000 up to Vista.
You can also run Snow leopard Server inside a virtual machine, like VMWare Fusion.
Apple changed it licence in 2008 to allow that, but only with server editions. I have personally used it with some success to deploy iphone applications (Although it was admitably a bit slow).
You will need decent hardware and preferably a dedicated hard-disk drive to be able to use it properly.
And considering the cost of vmware and osx server you might be better off buying a used mac.
Greetings,
I want to write a small cross-platform utility program with GUI in it. What language/GUI-library should I stick to? Is it possible whatsoever?
This is gonna be a small program, so I don't want to make people download JVM or .NET Framework. Is it possible to develop it natively?
Update 1.
By "natively" I mean that the end result will be native code without intermediate layers like Java Virtual Machine or .NET Common Language Runtime
Update 2.
A FREE solution is preferable ;)
If you know C or C++ the first cross platform GUI framework I can think of are:
QT (C++, proprietary but free with the LGPL licensing)
wxWidgets (C++, the most complete and stable but also huge)
FLTK (C++)
FOX (C++)
IUP (C, simpler and cleaner than the ones above)
If you know Pascal, you can try freepascal+Lazarus. I've never used it, though.
The problem is: If you do not want to have a GUI but you do not want to ask the user to download an eternal API, Framework or virtual machine to run it in, be it TCL/TK, Java or QT etc. then you get lost pretty fast.
The reason is: You would have to rebuild all the (GUI) functionality those APIs, frameworks and virtual machines provide you with to be platform independent. And that's a whole lot of work to do... .
On the other side: The Java virtual machine is installed on nearly any operating system from scratch, why not give this one a shot?
You want to develop a cross-platform program natively? Uh...I don't think that'll work, mainly because that phrase is a paradox. If you write native code, it by its very nature will only run on the platform you programmed it for. ;-) That's what the Frameworks are all about.
So what you should do instead is use a very slim framework if your program is going to be so small. itsmatt's idea of Qt is a possibility.
WxWindows? Oh, it's called WxWidgets now: http://www.wxwidgets.org/
wxWidgets has bindings to all sorts of languages - python for instance, if your app is small enough.
Lazarus is great. GTK2 on Linux, win32/64 on Windows, WINCE on euh, Wince. It even uses Carbon on Mac (working on COCOA). Also easy to sell to your boss (the code is Delphi compatible)
How about Python using Qt or Wx and then using PythonToExe to make a 'distributable'
Thought will have to giving to the development to ensure that no native functionality is used (i.e. registry etc.) Also things like line breaks in text files will have different escape characters so will need to be handled
Which OS's do you have in mind when you say cross-platform?
As Epaga correctly points out, native and cross-platform are mutually exclusive. You can either write multiple versions that run natively on multiple platforms, or you need to use some cross-platform framework.
In the case of the cross-platform framework approach, there will always be extra installs required. For example, many here suggest using Python and one of its frameworks. This would necessitate instructing people to install python - and potentially the framework - first.
If you are aiming at Windows and OS X (and are prepared to experiment with alpha-release code for Linux if support for that OS is required), I'd highly recommend you take a look at using Adobe AIR for cross-platform GUI applications.
I agree with Georgi, Java is the way to go. With a bit of work, you can make your desktop application work as a Java applet too (so that users do not need to actively download anything at all). See http://www.geogebra.org as an example of an application with runs smoothly as a cross-platform Java application AND has a simple port to a web applet.
Two other advantages to using Java are:
They have extensive libraries for building the UI, including UI component builders.
The Java runtime framework is generally updated automatically for the user.
One disadvantage:
The version of Java installed on your end users computer may not be totally compatible with your application, requiring you to code to the lowest likely denominator.
Try RealBasic. Visual Basic-like syntax, targets Win32, OS X and Linux. I don't know any details about targetting Linux, but for any cross-platform development I've done between Win32 and OS X its been a dream.
http://www.realbasic.com
Edit: Generates native executables. There is a small cost - $100.
Have you looked at Qt?
Flash? It's installed pretty much everywhere.
If it "HAS" to be Desktop use Qt. Nothing beats it right now.
However personally I gave up on desktop and any UI based project I do is normally Browser/Server based. You can easily write a little custom server that listens to some port so the program can run locally with no need for your users to install Apache or have access to the net. I have a small Lua, Python and C++ framework I made for that purpose (Want to add Javascript for the backend with V8 :)
If you're going to look at Qt and WxWidgets, don't forget to also check out GTK+ !
I agree with David Wees and Georgi,
Java is cross-platformness par excellence. You literally write once and run everywhere. With no need of compiling your code for each target OS or bitness, no worries about linking against anything, etc.
Only thing is, as you pointed out, that a JRE must be installed, but it's quick and straightforward to do even for novice end-users (it's a matter of clicking "Next>" a few times in the installer).
And with Java Web Start deployment gets even easier: the user just clicks the launch button on a webpage and the application runs (if the proper JVM is installed according to what specified in the JNLP descriptor) or the user gets redirected to the Java download page (if no suitable JVM is found).